hettinger_rl

Tampa Bay Times Sports editorial: Save us from the Buccaneers’ hideous uniforms

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, DG_Now said:

I don't think people can quite remember how radical a shift it was when the Bucs switched from their initial look to the pewter and red. Not only did they look radically different, they played radically different. I remember when I saw that the sadsack Buccaneers not only won their opening game of 1997, they did so over the then-great 49ers. And they looked awesome doing so; it was a sea change for the franchise and only took them two years to become a Super Bowl contender and five years to win it all.

 

Ive been a Bucs fan since around 1994, but this very game is where I absolutey fell in love with them. They completely dominated that game. They ended Jerry Rice’s season (And effectively his complete dominance over the league. He played awhile after that but was never quite the same) and concussed Steve Young to the point that he looked off kilter from then on out. That was the most impressed I’ve ever been with a sports team and from the opening quarter I knew I would be stanning for this idiot team from then on out until my heart finally, mercifully, explodes. 

 

 

If I had things my way, we would get a 30 for 30 about that game, what led up to it, and how it changed the direction of that franchise. It would probably bore you all to tears, but I’d be glued to the screen for that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that game being a really defining moment too. Pre-97 the Buccaneers were always this joke of a stupid bad team in stupid bad uniforms with bright colors and a portrait illustration for a logo. Nobody thought about them as a threat or took them seriously. If you were making a football movie and you needed a crappy fill-in team for the heroes to beat up on in the montage lead-up to the championship game the Bucs and their uniforms would've been that team. When they updated in 97 it's one of the biggest worst to first upgrades in sports uniform history. I saw it and said "THAT'S THE BUCCANEERS NOW??!?!?!" and if I recall correctly they started that season 6-0, right? It's a master-class in making a non-existent and/or tarnished brand into something recognizable overnight. I vividly remember my friend Adam saying "I didn't even know the Buccaneers were a team". I saw kids wearing Bucs jerseys in elementary school after that. In Ohio. I promise you no damn kids were coming to my school in orange Ericct Rhett jerseys before that. 

 

And they had their look for what should've been forever. Nailed it. Hit all the notes and more. I saw them up close in Cincinnati in 2010 and marveled at how good they looked opposite the stupid Bengals. Especially because it was a beautiful sunny October day and their pewter helmets and pants glistened. A lot of people don't care about this, but I do - that's what they wore when they won the Super Bowl, which means something happened, uniforms included, where the conditions all worked together to win a championship. I don't think things like that should be thrown out so quickly. That was never going to happen in the creamsicles. That uni didn't allow them to shoulder the attitude that the new unis gave them. I know that sounds silly, but I think there's truth in it. 


The current uniforms are closer to the feeling of the creamsicles than the 97 unis. They're "the players have to wear this" rather than 97 ones which were "the players GET to wear this". I read the original post's article and nodded along. Everything about the recent update was a downgrade. Logos - what once was a very intentional look with heavy, rough lines that appeared menacing and looked as if it was literally taken from an old flag, like it was haphazardly sewn together out of actual scraps of clothe, or lifted off a treasure map is now this clean, sterilized looking thing that has no bite to it. It's like they buffed off all the edges and now it's borderline robotic in appearance. Even the ball got less aggressive. It looks like something you'd see on party supplies for a kid's pirate themed birthday.

 

The rest is like 10 bad decisions all plopped on top of each other - matte pewter on the jerseys, yokes, digital alarm clock numbers, orange touching brownish gray, the massive helmet logo, the chrome facemask which is super out of place and already looks dated, and we can't let anyone forget that it was originally even worse because they tried to use those weird airbrushed spikes on the helmet.

 

I still think they wear the worst uniform in the NFL and the Cleveland Browns exist. If they change the answer is obvious and the creamsicles shouldn't be considered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe the '97 unveiling was the first "public party" unveiling of a uniform. 

 

Everyone loved it from Day 1.  I liked the creamsicles...but I loved the new '97 unis.

 

It probably didn't lead to a championship (the Raiders having pretty much the same playbook from Gruden to Callahan certainly helped) but the attitude of the team definitely changed. 

 

But then they got awful again from 2009-on, with a year or two of good play in-between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did people ever view the University of Tennessee as "weak", "soft", or "gay" for their uniforms? It's besically the same aesthetic, minus the red accents and cheesy logo. I just don't understand why the Bucs got so much hate for the creamsicles, but everyone seemed fine with Tennessee. Was it just the logo? Was it that NFL fans were/are more homophobic than college fans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

I do believe the '97 unveiling was the first "public party" unveiling of a uniform.

 

I know the Brewers did one in 1994.  I’m pretty sure they also did it in 1990 when they went from pullovers to button-downs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, burgundy said:

So did people ever view the University of Tennessee as "weak", "soft", or "gay" for their uniforms? It's besically the same aesthetic, minus the red accents and cheesy logo. I just don't understand why the Bucs got so much hate for the creamsicles, but everyone seemed fine with Tennessee. Was it just the logo? Was it that NFL fans were/are more homophobic than college fans?

The logo was a winking pirate with a mustache, so it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to "butt pirate," and Buccaneers rhymes with "f-ckin' queers." But I remember kids calling the Jaguars the Faguars, it was just a different time when everything was retarded and gay. And if you asked how an inanimate object or concept could be gay, maybe you were the one who was gay. I don't miss 1998.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, burgundy said:

So did people ever view the University of Tennessee as "weak", "soft", or "gay" for their uniforms? It's besically the same aesthetic, minus the red accents and cheesy logo. I just don't understand why the Bucs got so much hate for the creamsicles, but everyone seemed fine with Tennessee. Was it just the logo? Was it that NFL fans were/are more homophobic than college fans?

 

The biggest reason I’m even a Bucs fan from California in the first place is because when I was really little I used to get them mixed up with UT. My entire family on my dad’s side are all Vols diehards so I was raised a Vols fan. I remember seeing the Bucs up close for the first time and thinking, “Eww, that’s not the Vols. What is that mess?” So yes they’re comparable, but the difference in the effectiveness of those looks is night and day different. The Vols only use orange and white which is clean and simple, and have the huge, cool looking Power T on the helmet. The Bucs on the other hand used a less vibrant shade of orange, paired it with reddish orange, and put that creepy/terrible/lame looking muddied logo on the helmets that was impossible to see from any distance. It was a jumbled mess in comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, burgundy said:

So did people ever view the University of Tennessee as "weak", "soft", or "gay" for their uniforms? It's besically the same aesthetic, minus the red accents and cheesy logo. I just don't understand why the Bucs got so much hate for the creamsicles, but everyone seemed fine with Tennessee. Was it just the logo? Was it that NFL fans were/are more homophobic than college fans?

 

At the time, very possible.

 

But colleges have long held on to colors that pro teams back away from, colors that hearken back to a time of different perceptions.  See New York University’s mascot, the “Violets”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

screen-shot-2016-09-29-at-9-02-37-pm.jpg

List of things that have crossed people's minds more than NYU sports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colleges have always gotten a pass for using color schemes that pro teams wouldn't or couldn't touch. It's probably because the University is generally older, people grew up with it so it's more accepted, the colors are representative of an entire school and not just a football team, and the context within which the school's color scheme was chosen has since changed.

 

But also there is something about adding red trim to orange that makes it feel softer than just orange and white. IDK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

See New York University’s mascot, the “Violets”. 


Technically speaking, the nickname sported by New York University athletic teams is Violets. Since 1983, the school's athletic mascot has been a bobcat.

Gm3jQLXl.gif

The first costumed mascot bobcat at NYU debuted in 1983. The mascot costume has been subsequently updated in 1988 and, most recently, 2000.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think the Bucs change was overshadowed by what the Broncos (or Nike) had done with their uniforms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just accepted that colleges have their historical colors and that's what their teams are going to wear.  Also, Tennessee doesn't have the probably-gay-winking-pirate on their helmet, and the red accents kinda make it look (literally) "fruitier", if we stretch things some.  They also had the cool checkerboard end zone that everyone loved. 

 

I ain't sayin' the criticism of the creamsicles was justified or even rational, just that it happened and those were some of the reasons.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll probably never get the color of the pants right but at least they have the white pants to fall back on. It's still a great looking set.

Image result for 1998 tampa bay buccaneers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, insert name said:

They'll probably never get the color of the pants right but at least they have the white pants to fall back on. It's still a great looking set.

Image result for 1998 tampa bay buccaneers

I long for that look to return for the Vikings on the road

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you all think that if there was a chance in Heck that the Bucs would ever go back to Creamsicle look they would have brought out a Creamsicle alternate by now.

The Chargers teased the powder blues for years before finally wearing them in a game again. And now they added a Royal Blue Fouts/Coryell jersey to their lineup as well.

I think an even larger contingent of fans nationwide were crying for the Powder Blue Chargers than cry out for the Creamsicle Buccaneers now.

 

The Broncos wear their original Brown/Yellow, Jets wear original Titans Colors.

The Eagles and Packers both still wear those abominations they like to call throwback uniforms.

 

I think it's pretty clear no one associated with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers wants anything to do with turning the clock all the way back to the late 70's/80"s.

 

Keep Bucco Bruce where he belongs, a choice when playing Madden.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MC Buffalo said:

Don't you all think that if there was a chance in Heck that the Bucs would ever go back to Creamsicle look they would have brought out a Creamsicle alternate by now.

The Chargers teased the powder blues for years before finally wearing them in a game again. And now they added a Royal Blue Fouts/Coryell jersey to their lineup as well.

I think an even larger contingent of fans nationwide were crying for the Powder Blue Chargers than cry out for the Creamsicle Buccaneers now.

 

The Broncos wear their original Brown/Yellow, Jets wear original Titans Colors.

The Eagles and Packers both still wear those abominations they like to call throwback uniforms.

 

I think it's pretty clear no one associated with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers wants anything to do with turning the clock all the way back to the late 70's/80"s.

 

Keep Bucco Bruce where he belongs, a choice when playing Madden.

 

 

Um, the Bucs wore creamsicle throwbacks once a year from 2009-2012, but when the helmet rule came into effect they were mothballed.

 

Its clear the ownership doesnt mind wearing them, but they have distanced themselves from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MC Buffalo said:

Don't you all think that if there was a chance in Heck that the Bucs would ever go back to Creamsicle look they would have brought out a Creamsicle alternate by now.

The Chargers teased the powder blues for years before finally wearing them in a game again. And now they added a Royal Blue Fouts/Coryell jersey to their lineup as well.

@AstroBull21 pointed out that the Bucs wore the creamsicle throwbacks for four years before the one helmet rule put a stop to it.

The only way the Bucs could wear orange now is if they paired it with the pewter helmet, and orange and pewter looks awful. I don’t mind the Super Bowl look or the Bucco Bruce look, but mixing them is the worst idea. 

 

To suggest that the team never wanted anything to do with the creamsicle look is nonsense though. They wore it happily before and they continue to sell throwback Bruce merch. I see it all the time around town. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow, the mod team has received a few reports on the language used in this thread. And we wanted to make our stance on the matter crystal clear. 

 

The terms “gay,” “fruity,” “queer,” etc...were used to describe the old Bucco Bruce uniforms back when they were current. It’s the opinion of the mod team that using that language in a historical context is fine. It’s silly to pretend that no one said this stuff about the Bucco Bruce look when discussing said look. 

We understand if some find it offensive, but we ask that everyone consider the context of a post before reporting it.

 

That said? Use of the word “gay,” or other homophobic insults in a malicious manner will continue to be moderated and met with disciplinary action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.